From my understanding of basic British History, we went quite a while without a monarch system during which we were doing "fine" to some extent.
And then we adopted the monarch system back on, only that this time the Royal family would have far less jurisdiction than it did - Leaving most of the power to the elected members of the people. I.e. the democratic system that we live in today.

So what exactly is the function of the Royal Family?

This is not a ****-stirring question. I'm genuinely intrigued. I just read about the Queen's 60 Mill jubilee boat and bearing in mind that super expensive wedding not long ago... I read a lot of comments from people that are not to any extent amused by the Royal Family's "Budget" so to speak. I personally don't think it's justified.

So what's exactly going on..

Why is the monarchy so vital?

Why do they get to spend money like mad in our current climate which from my current understanding is quite tight, whilst I'm sure others are starving/homeless/jobless and the whole country is up to it's ball sack in debt...

jokes aside i don't really like having a state funded royal family, yes they bring in more money than they cost but on principle we should not be encouraging the view a group of people can live a life of luxury and somehow be superior to everyone else simply because of who their family is.

The world isn't a computer game that you boot up and start playing. The UK isn't some tinpot dictatorship formed a few years ago out of the ashes of French colonialism. It's one of the sources of Western government and politics and a mature political system.

You don't get to choose which bits you want, you have the bits that have developed. Britain has a Royal Family because that's the way it has developed over many many hundreds of years.

Like all these idiots that apparently "reject" capitalism. Hello? We didn't choose it. We developed it, and developed it because it works (albeit not perfectly), but the people that developed other systems have spent a long time in some pretty deep brown stuff.

Yes, Britain was a republic very briefly for about 10 years, and it was an unmitigated disaster with everyone hating the de facto "president" Cromwell, so much so that the monarchy was restored.

Gives the image of the UK false prestige when viewed by other countries around the world. Also helps maintain current relations with countries like Canada, new zealand and Australia who still consider the queen as their monarch.

Also they provide us with a myriad of public servants and international ambassadors with greater training and authority than any other institution. Add to that the fact that our Royal Family is admired in much of South America and Africa, and even in republican countries, they don't hate our Monarchy.

The monarchy does not cost each person 67p a year, as the palace claims. This figure is part of the official spin. It is reached by dividing £40m (a woefully inadequate figure) by 60m people, which includes every man, woman and child in the country (rather than just every taxpayer).

Let's repeat the important point here: this is blatant spin. No other public expense is justified by dividing it among the total population. If it were then almost any government expenditure could be spun as 'cheap'.

The key figure is £150m, the estimated total cost for the maintenance and lifestyles of one family: 100 times the cost of the Irish presidency, 17 times the cost (per person) of members of parliament and without any return on our 'investment'.

To test whether something is 'value-for-money' we need to judge what we get for our money and whether we can get something better for less. The monarchy completely fails this simple test.

The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy to taxpayers is £202.4m, around five times the official figure published by the royal household (£38.3m last year).
The official figure excludes a number of costs, including round-the-clock security, lavish royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.
Civil List expenditure has increased by 94 per cent in real terms over the last two decades.
£202.4m is equivalent to 9,560 nurses, 8,200 police officers and more than the total annual Ministry of Defence spending on food. The total cost is also equivalent to a number of high profile government cuts, including cuts to the Sure Start programme.
The British monarchy is 112 times as expensive as the Irish president and more than twice as expensive as the French semi-presidential system.
Britain's royal family is the most expensive in Europe at more than double the cost of the Dutch monarchy.
Taxpayers are kept in the dark about the exact cost of the monarchy, due to the royal household's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the royal family's finances

(Original post by tamimi)
From my understanding of basic British History, we went quite a while without a monarch system during which we were doing "fine" to some extent.
And then we adopted the monarch system back on, only that this time the Royal family would have far less jurisdiction than it did - Leaving most of the power to the elected members of the people. I.e. the democratic system that we live in today.

So what exactly is the function of the Royal Family?

This is not a ****-stirring question. I'm genuinely intrigued. I just read about the Queen's 60 Mill jubilee boat and bearing in mind that super expensive wedding not long ago... I read a lot of comments from people that are not to any extent amused by the Royal Family's "Budget" so to speak. I personally don't think it's justified.

So what's exactly going on..

Why is the monarchy so vital?

Why do they get to spend money like mad in our current climate which from my current understanding is quite tight, whilst I'm sure others are starving/homeless/jobless and the whole country is up to it's ball sack in debt...

How do they spend money like mad?
The jubilee boat is being built for her, not by her request.

You do realise they would be rich even if the monarchy was abolished? Most of the money "given to her" goes towards state banquets (diplomatic engagements etc. that would take place anyway), upkeep of the palaces (just like stately homes need to be kept up - they are pieces of our history after all) etc.
All profits made by the Crown Estate are contributed to the Treasury.

-They help keep the traditional British culture alive
-They bring in more money through tourism than is spent on them why should we throw away money especially in these harsh economic times
-If a dictator ever emerges in the goverment then the Royal Family will have the backing of the military and will be able to remove the dictator if they need to on behalf of the public they are a saftey net if you like

They are a key part of our culture and history people associate our country with the royal family there is no way we should just throw part of our heritige down the drain because some left wing idealistic morons demand it.

(Original post by Shabalala)
-If a dictator ever emerges in the goverment then the Royal Family will have the backing of the military and will be able to remove the dictator if they need to on behalf of the public they are a saftey net if you like

But no it wouldn't happen like that. If someone, say a PM got to the stage where they felt comfortable enough to start dictating, it most likely means that quite a few powerful and prominent people in this country already have their backing i.e. military chiefs, police chiefs, politicians etc. So what makes you think they'll listen to what the queen says? All that will happen is the same thing that always happens when a dictator overthrows a king or queen, they'll be put into exile or killed and the dictator will take over. Look at the history of military coups and overthrows of monarchs, it never ends well for the monarch!

Princes William and Harry equally inherited the £22 million estate left by Diana - rich from her own family, not by marriage. Just in case you assume that they are spending Gov. money.

And the diplomatic relations they make and upkeep for the country are incomparable. The Queen commands respect all around the world, everyone knows her - do you know the Heads of State of France and Germany? I doubt it.
Countries in the Middle East, such as Bahrain, Qatar and Saudia Arabia, also have Royal Families. They undoubtedly have much stronger relations with us because of ours. Regardless of what we think of those countries, our relationships with them are extremely important.

Someone here mentioned the cost. The cost of the Royal Family has been used to justify their existence. This is partly due to brainwashing and propaganda through the decades. The reason why the Royal Family exist still is because the powers-that-be (of the day; whether it is Blair or Cameron or the newspapers) have to maintain the status quo for as long as they can. Maintaining the status quo involves many things, one of them being that the masses need to believe in a modern a fairy tale; another is that we are not willing to give up tradition and Nationalism, especially so with regards to institutions still in existence today who still believe that the Royals are divinely appointed, or who encapsulate the only lasting vestiges (apart from the army and bunting) of the British Empire.

(Original post by Martyn*)
Someone here mentioned the cost. The cost of the Royal Family has been used to justify their existence. This is partly due to brainwashing and propaganda through the decades. The reason why the Royal Family exist still is because the powers-that-be (of the day; whether it is Blair or Cameron or the newspapers) have to maintain the status quo for as long as they can. Maintaining the status quo involves many things, one of them being that the masses need to believe in a modern a fairy tale; another is that we are not willing to give up tradition and Nationalism, especially so with regards to institutions still in existence today who still believe that the Royals are divinely appointed, or who encapsulate the only lasting vestiges (apart from the army and bunting) of the British Empire.

(Original post by tamimi)
From my understanding of basic British History, we went quite a while without a monarch system during which we were doing "fine" to some extent.

Whilst I respect your question, I take issue that England was quite fine during the Interregnum of Oliver Cromwell - he was such a repressive despot that what remained of Parliament sought Charles II out and reinstated him as king. Cromwell was not long in becoming an absolute ruler who did not answer to Parliament - seeing as he disbanded it during his tenure - and made his position of 'Lord Protector' of England hereditary - a monarchy in all but name.

Oliver Cromwell replaced an absolutionist king with a repressive dictator - himself.

Im definetly not saying that without a monarch, this is the position that we would be in, Its just wrong to say that England was just fine after the Civil War. Its amazing just how much power corrupted him.